Subject: [drinks] Feedback on drafts

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:47:24 +0200

I reread our drafts earlier today and have a few nits.

Framework doc

3.1 Def 1 has gibberish "comprises of"

Def of "peering organization" is unsatisfying. Is it another registrant?
Maybe the problem is in the definition of registrant, which doesn't say a
rant isa/isnota  organization. One has to dig into 5.1 for this to get
clear.

4.4 "provisions" should be singular.

With 4.5, relation between rar, rant, and auth is unclear.

4.7 near real time needs further explanation. Fast enough to do a lookup
while completing a call?

4.8 data set should be plural

5.2.2 the para starting "A Route Group Offer". The "Refer" needs a "To". Check
all instances of "refer" in doc as the style used is consistently
inconsistent with US technical English.

6.5  RteGrpOfferKeyType has spelling error "specificaiton".

6.6 first sentence "paths" should be singular.

SOAP Doc

5. Needs to tell us the product of authentication; that is the identity of
the rar to be used with the unspecified rar/rant authorization table.

6.2.1.1 stop/rollback discussion should make reference to how we tell the
requester which mechanism will be or was applied.

9. Are the example SSPs acting as registrars? Registrants?

Security Considerations are in general weak. There is no discussion of
actors, intent, or vectors.

I remain perplexed by the peering model. All we have is a model of
grant/accept for authorization to make records visible. There is a lot more
to peering.